Safe and adequate quantity of water is crucial for the implementation of infection prevention and control measures during the prevention of COVID-19. Rainwater harvesting could be an optional water source to fulfill or support the emergency water demand in areas where there is abundant rainfall. The study aimed to assess the rainwater harvesting potential and storage requirements for households and selected institutions and to determine its adequacy to satisfy the emergency water demand for the prevention of COVID-19 in Dilla town, Southern Ethiopia. Rainwater harvesting potential for households and selected institutions were quantified using 17 years’ worth of rainfall data from the Ethiopian Meteorology Agency. To address the rainfall variability, we computed the confidence limits of monthly harvest-able rainwater potential using confidence intervals about the mean as well as confidence intervals using Coefficient of Variation (COV) of monthly rainfall. The storage requirements were also estimated by considering the driest and west seasons and months. The average annual rainfall in Dilla town was 1464 mm. Households with a roof area of 40 m 2 and 100 m 2 have the potential to harvest 7.2-39.66 m 3 and 19.11-105.35 m 3 of rainwater respectively. Similarly, the rainwater harvesting potential for the selected institutions was in the range of 34524.5-190374.5m 3 , 4070.8-14964.8 m 3 , 1140.4-6288.6 m 3 , 4561.7-25154.3 m 3 , 5605.8-14152.8 m 3 , and 402.4-2219.1 m 3 of rainwater for colleges, vocational schools, secondary schools, primary schools, Dilla University Referral Hospital and health centers respectively. These institutional rainwater harvesting potentials can address, 24-132.2, 222.4 -817.8, 59.4-327.3, 34.6-190.9, 94.5-238.5, and 28.2-155.7 % of the colleges, vocational schools, secondary schools, primary schools, Dilla University referral hospital, and Rainwater can be an alternative water source for the town in the fight against COVID-19. Further applied researches must be conducted that can address the rainwater quality and treatment for ease of use.

No abstract

Hand sanitizers are used as an alternative to hand washing to reduce the number of viable microorganisms when soap and water are not readily available. This study aimed to investigate the anti-bacterial effectiveness of commercially available hand sanitizers and those commonly used in healthcare and community settings. A mapping exercise was done to select and procure different hand sanitizers (n = 18) from retailers. Five microorganisms implicated in hospital-acquired infections were selected and tested against each hand sanitizer: Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Twenty-one volunteers were recruited to do a handprint before and after applying the hand sanitizer. Only four out of eighteen hand sanitizers (22%) were effective against all tested bacterial species, and an equal number (22%) were completely ineffective. Seven hand sanitizers with a label claim of 99.99% were only effective against E. coli. Only five hand sanitizers (27%) effectively reduced bacteria on participants’ hands. This study showed that only a fifth of hand sanitizers were effective against selected microorganisms. The findings raise a concern about the effectiveness of hand sanitizers and their role in infection, prevention, and control if not well regulated.

No abstract

No abstract